Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 120


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 119
84 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects ENGINEERING (PE + FD) ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT Admin. & Mgmt. (% of Construction) 30% 30% PE+FD (% of Construction) 25% 25% 19% 19% 20% 20% 17% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 15% 15% 13% 12% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% New Line Extension of Line Rehabilitation of New Line Extension of Line Rehabilitation of Line Line Sample Size: 19 28 4 19 28 4 Light Rail Heavy Rail All Modes Figure 52. Subtotaled soft cost components as a percentage of construction by project type. Soft costs for project administration and construction management are higher than engineering- related activities, as shown in the difference between the left and right panes of Figure 52. However, the difference attributable to projects being extensions or new construction appears negligible. C.9. Soft Costs by Complexity: Percentage of Guideway Not at Grade Figure 53 extends the examination of project complexity by focusing on preliminary engineer- ing and final design costs, and suggests a similar conclusion. Engineering costs in percentage terms do not appear to be influenced by the extent to which the alignment is not at grade. Light rail projects have a fairly consistent 15% soft cost percent of construction costs. Heavy rail proj- ects are about 10% to 15%, and the combined database is about 13%. Figure 54 examines the effect of alignment complexity on the construction management and project administration soft costs of a project. Similar to the above findings, the proportion of guideway not at grade does not appear to affect the soft costs as a percentage of construc- tion costs. LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL 50% 50% 50% 45% 2 45% 2 45% 2 R = 0.02 R = 0.02 R = 0.07 PE + FD Costs (% of PE + FD Costs (% of 40% 40% 40% PE + FD Costs (% of 35% Construction) 35% Construction) 35% Construction) 30% 30% 30% 25% 25% 25% 20% 20% 20% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade 2 2 2 R = 0.02 t-Stat = 0.58 R = 0.02 t-Stat = -0.73 R = 0.067 t-Stat: -1.81 Figure 53. Engineering soft costs as a percentage of construction versus percentage of guideway not at grade.

OCR for page 119
Supplementary As-Built Cost Analysis 85 LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL Admin. Costs (% of Construction) Admin. Costs (% of Construction) Admin. Costs (% of Construction) 50% 2 50% 2 50% R = 0.00 2 45% R = 0.03 R = 0.00 45% 45% 40% 40% 40% 35% 35% 35% 30% 30% 30% 25% 25% 25% 20% 20% 20% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade 2 2 2 R = 0.00 t-Stat = 0.25 R = 0.03 t-Stat = 0.87 R = 0.00 t-Stat: -0.38 Figure 54. Administration soft costs as a percentage of construction versus percentage of guideway not at grade. The analysis so far has defined "not at grade" to include aerial structures, underground cut and cover, underground tunnel, retained cut or fill, and built-up fill guideway. Vertical align- ment has been applied as proxy for project complexity. However, these three last alignment types (retained cut or fill, and built-up fill) can be designed and constructed with fairly standardized engineering and design requirements that are similar to at-grade alignments. Therefore, Fig- ure 55, Figure 56, and Figure 57 designate these alignment types as "at grade," and re-examine the relationship between soft costs and project complexity. These three figures, then, include only aerial structure, underground cut and cover, and underground tunneling alignments as "not at grade." Figure 55 is comparable to Figure 28 and produces similarly statistically insignificant findings. Light rail projects are nearly flat at about 39% soft costs as a percentage of construction costs. Heavy rail projects range from about 28% to about 33%. The combined project database is nearly flat at about 35% to 38% soft costs as a percent of construction costs. Figure 56 and Figure 57 are comparable to the analysis presented in Figure 53 and Figure 54 and are mostly inconclusive. In Figure 56, both rail modes and the combined project database result in a slightly decreasing trend in engineering and design soft costs as a percentage of con- struction with increasing alignment complexity. The results are mixed for Figure 57, where light LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL 100% 100% 100% Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 2 10% R = 0.00 10% 2 10% R = 0.01 2 R = 0.03 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade % of Guideway Not At-Grade 2 2 2 R = 0.00 t-Stat = -0.03 R = 0.01 t-Stat = 0.60 R = 0.03 t-Stat: = -1.18 Figure 55. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus percentage of guideway not at grade (retained cut and built-up fill designated as "at grade").